POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : The most dangerous species of all : Re: The most dangerous species of all Server Time
30 Sep 2024 01:15:30 EDT (-0400)
  Re: The most dangerous species of all  
From: somebody
Date: 2 May 2009 00:22:39
Message: <49fbca8f$1@news.povray.org>
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fbb052$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> >> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> >> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> >> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> >> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
> >>
> >> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think
he
> >> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> >
> > I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the
> > self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

> And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
> a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

You got me there, if I'm reading you right. It can of course benefit someone
if the act/thought of being concerned about the universe a few hundered
years from now makes the person warm and fuzzy inside. Homeopathy, to
incorporate another recent thread, benefits the individual if that
individual is under the illusion that it works. But if the cat is out the
bag, it stops working, and you cannot will the cat back in. I can no more
pretend that caring about the state of the universe hundered years from now
can make me feel good inside, and more than I can pretend that homeopathy
can cure my ailments. If caring about supernatural (universe in 200 years)
makes you feel good, more power to you. But that's as irrational to me as
(correct my assumption here if wrong) homeopathy is to you.

Similarly, I'm quite convinced that believing in various gods makes people
happy, and even successful. However, I still call them irrational, for their
belief is not based on the rational realization (*) that the benefit of
beliveing in god(s) is feeling good. It's a catch 22. You cannot belive in
god for rational reasons and still feel good, for the moment you realize
those reasons, the magic, that is, the reality of god, disappears. Placebo
doesn't work if you know it's saline solution.

> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I have only my definition to judge others by. Pretending to use any other
definition would be dishonest.

(*) There are those who, out of rational reasons, *pretend* to belive in
god(s). "Belief" and "pretend belief" are very different, of course.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.